Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #593753 > unrolled thread
| Started by | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-18 16:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-21 11:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-18 16:08 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-18 18:48 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-18 19:15 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-19 08:23 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 11:34 -0700
Re: clock rate "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:39 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 13:11 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 20:40 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 07:08 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 23:29 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 08:48 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 02:10 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 11:29 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 02:48 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 13:16 +0200
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 13:25 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 16:19 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-21 00:39 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 07:52 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 07:52 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 07:55 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:07 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 09:28 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:50 +0200
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 10:23 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:31 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 11:41 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 08:38 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:01 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:11 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 10:19 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:29 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:43 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 10:40 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:47 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 08:49 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:34 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 09:58 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:42 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 08:53 +0200
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 02:46 -0700
Re: clock rate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 13:20 +0200
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-21 09:13 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:56 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-21 12:29 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:37 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-20 15:08 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 15:42 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 10:20 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:28 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 11:44 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:56 -0700
Re: clock rate "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 13:09 -0700
Re: clock rate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-21 13:43 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 13:57 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-21 15:07 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 17:05 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-22 11:48 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-22 13:58 -0500
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-22 17:26 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-23 05:00 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-23 08:42 -0500
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-23 09:00 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-24 14:43 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-25 10:22 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-25 11:31 -0700
Re: clock rate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-25 12:11 -0700
Re: clock rate Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-25 17:31 -0500
Re: clock rate "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 03:11 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 08:47 -0700
Re: clock rate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 12:41 +1000
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-18 22:27 -0700
Re: clock rate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:47 -0500
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-19 11:21 -0700
Re: clock rate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-20 16:10 +1000
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-20 01:34 -0700
Re: clock rate Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-08-19 07:47 +0200
Re: clock rate Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 10:16 -0700
Re: clock rate xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-21 11:02 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7980d04e-a65e-41c5-aef4-32afb0ce349c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594004 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:52:06 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >> > >>>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did. > >>>> > >>>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ? > >>>> > >> > >>> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case. > >> > >> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario, > >> there is a GR prediction for the case. > >> > > xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? > > Stop here and learn yourself what it predicts. > It is your homework, not homework of others. > > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. xxein: I have done my homework. Who is qualified to grade it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 17:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npcg3q$sa1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594025 |
Dne 21/08/2016 v 16:55 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:52:06 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: >> Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: >>>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case. >>>> >>>> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario, >>>> there is a GR prediction for the case. >>>> >>> xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? >> >> Stop here and learn yourself what it predicts. >> It is your homework, not homework of others. >> > > xxein: I have done my homework. Who is qualified to grade it? > IF you did, you would not post the topic, especially after all those 25 years. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bbe97c6-4610-434b-93d8-788164a08f53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594027 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 11:07:42 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > Dne 21/08/2016 v 16:55 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:52:06 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >> Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >>>> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > >>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ? > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>>> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case. > >>>> > >>>> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario, > >>>> there is a GR prediction for the case. > >>>> > >>> xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? > >> > >> Stop here and learn yourself what it predicts. > >> It is your homework, not homework of others. > >> > > > > xxein: I have done my homework. Who is qualified to grade it? > > > > IF you did, you would not post the topic, > especially after all those 25 years. > > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. xxein: My homework has provided me with an analytical answer. I posted to see if anybody else could do the same. So your answer is 'no' then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npcm4d$ho1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594035 |
Dne 21/08/2016 v 18:28 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >> >> IF you did, you would not post the topic, >> especially after all those 25 years. > > xxein: My homework has provided me with an analytical answer. I posted to see if anybody else could do the same. So your answer is 'no' then? > If your car was ( not trivially ) broken and you asked about the repair possibility, the answer of an accountant, a baker or even a hobbiest would be irrelevant ( unless by chance they had needed knowledge ). The relevant answer is of a mechanic of the ( authorized ) service. And if you do not get it, this fact says nothing about the answer itself. I am not a mechanic to give you the answer. I may have one, but it may be in details inaccurate, same as a hobbist may have some repair ideas. Ask - nicely - at sci.physics.relativity and I think Tom would reply. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57B9E395.668E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #594004 |
Poutnik wrote: > > Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >> > >>>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did. > >>>> > >>>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ? > >>>> > >> > >>> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case. > >> > >> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario, > >> there is a GR prediction for the case. > >> > > xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? > > Stop here and learn yourself what it predicts. > It is your homework, not homework of others. > xxein doesn't understand he is in a computer simulation and we are all in his simulation. xxein, you're dream is turning into a nightmare...and you're not going to wake up.. it's time to change the dream.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac2c70ef-6634-4047-a613-546850caf1ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594047 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:22:49 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > Poutnik wrote: > > > > Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > > >> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > > >> > > >>>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did. > > >>>> > > >>>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ? > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case. > > >> > > >> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario, > > >> there is a GR prediction for the case. > > >> > > > xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? > > > > Stop here and learn yourself what it predicts. > > It is your homework, not homework of others. > > > > > xxein doesn't understand he is in a computer simulation and we are all > in his simulation. > > > xxein, you're dream is turning into a nightmare...and you're not going > to wake up.. > > it's time to change the dream. xxein: Do you post to dreams?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57B9F5BE.7F9E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #594062 |
xxein1@att.net wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:22:49 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > Poutnik wrote: > > > > > > Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:25:28 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > > > >> Dne 20/08/2016 v 11:48 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > > >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:29:10 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>>> xxein: The former theory made no prediction that the latter theory predicted on. You only assume or think it did. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> What is the problem with prediction of GR for the case ? > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>> xxein: There is no prediction by GR of the case. > > > >> > > > >> AS the GR math model is applicable on the scenario, > > > >> there is a GR prediction for the case. > > > >> > > > > xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? > > > > > > Stop here and learn yourself what it predicts. > > > It is your homework, not homework of others. > > > > > > > > > xxein doesn't understand he is in a computer simulation and we are all > > in his simulation. > > > > > > xxein, you're dream is turning into a nightmare...and you're not going > > to wake up.. > > > > it's time to change the dream. > > xxein: Do you post to dreams? i'm posting in Your dream.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 08:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npbia2$2so$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593979 |
Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >> > xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? How is it justified? Until you answer, you are either lazy or unable to do it, > you make an unjustified claim before that. > > "I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate?" > > Did I answer my own question incorrectly? Did I answer my own question? Did anyone else (pun) answer my question? Does anyone know how to answer the question? Did anyone ask how to answer the question? Is it beneath one's dignity to answer the question? Is the answer contained in MTW pp 476 eqns 405-434 - inhomogeneous polymorphic class2 rotational matrices? > > What does GR say about it? Does GR assume something not in evidence? Is GR lacking evidence? Is it beyond the limits of GR? Why or why not? > > Am I the only one able to calculate it and answer the question? Can anyone prove me wrong. You can't because you don't know what 'right' is. > > Where is Hillman, Gibbs, Baez, or Roberts? What do they have to say about this? Would they know or just think they know? > > Who can one rely upon for this matter? Who can analyze all the aspects of this and be confident with an answer? It doesn't cost anything to try. > You can get the professional quality answers easier, if reposted in a cooperative style. Not in confrontation and demanding style, that does not really search for the answer, but just for confirmation of your a priori idea. Searching for confirmation, you evade scientific methods that could violate it. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 08:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ce07234-260d-4d88-a5d9-092c9b3e0b02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594006 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 2:39:01 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > >> > > xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? How is it justified? Until you answer, you are either lazy or unable to do it, > > you make an unjustified claim before that. > > > > "I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate?" > > > > Did I answer my own question incorrectly? Did I answer my own question? Did anyone else (pun) answer my question? Does anyone know how to answer the question? Did anyone ask how to answer the question? Is it beneath one's dignity to answer the question? Is the answer contained in MTW pp 476 eqns 405-434 - inhomogeneous polymorphic class2 rotational matrices? > > > > What does GR say about it? Does GR assume something not in evidence? Is GR lacking evidence? Is it beyond the limits of GR? Why or why not? > > > > Am I the only one able to calculate it and answer the question? Can anyone prove me wrong. You can't because you don't know what 'right' is. > > > > Where is Hillman, Gibbs, Baez, or Roberts? What do they have to say about this? Would they know or just think they know? > > > > Who can one rely upon for this matter? Who can analyze all the aspects of this and be confident with an answer? It doesn't cost anything to try. > > > > You can get the professional quality answers easier, > if reposted in a cooperative style. > > Not in confrontation and demanding style, > that does not really search for the answer, > but just for confirmation of your a priori idea. > > Searching for confirmation, > you evade scientific methods that could violate it. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. xxein: OK. I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 17:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npcgb7$sa8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594026 |
Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:01 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate? > While their rate is the same, their measured rate is dependent on details of ambiguously described scenario. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <022659c4-3c17-4dd9-9574-8dc070b7f9e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594028 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:01 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > > > > I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate? > > > > While their rate is the same, their measured rate > is dependent on details of ambiguously described scenario. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. xxein: You don't even know what constants you need to formulate an answer. OK. Earth's mass, radius, the specified measured velocity of the falling clock and an arbitrary height for the experiment. Since the form of the question only requires a binary choice for an answer, it is sufficient to provide only a range of velocities to satisfy an answer. The velocity (V) of the falling clock is 0<V<sqrt(2*little g*(r+h)) where h is an arbitrary height above ground of the stationary clock. This is a corrected version of the parameters I gave earlier. Unless (big)G, mass and radius have changed since then, this is all you need for the answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 19:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npcodp$pmn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594045 |
Dne 21/08/2016 v 19:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: >> Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:01 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): >> >>> >>> I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate? >>> >> >> While their rate is the same, their measured rate >> is dependent on details of ambiguously described scenario. >> >> -- >> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) >> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. > > xxein: You don't even know what constants you need to formulate an answer. False conclusion. You are not really interested in the answer, but rather in trolling. Why not to post to S.P.R. ? -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7818b16-5007-400e-abb4-8082214ca44e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594051 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:29:31 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > Dne 21/08/2016 v 19:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >> Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:01 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > >> > >>> > >>> I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate? > >>> > >> > >> While their rate is the same, their measured rate > >> is dependent on details of ambiguously described scenario. > >> > >> -- > >> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > >> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. > > > > xxein: You don't even know what constants you need to formulate an answer. > > False conclusion. > > You are not really interested in the answer, > but rather in trolling. > > Why not to post to S.P.R. ? > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. xxein: I will - eventually. Right now I'm pretty busy here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57B9E7A0.288@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #594026 |
xxein1@att.net wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 2:39:01 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > > Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > >> > > > xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? How is it justified? Until you answer, you are either lazy or unable to do it, > > > you make an unjustified claim before that. > > > > > > "I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate?" > > > > > > Did I answer my own question incorrectly? Did I answer my own question? Did anyone else (pun) answer my question? Does anyone know how to answer the question? Did anyone ask how to answer the question? Is it beneath one's dignity to answer the question? Is the answer contained in MTW pp 476 eqns 405-434 - inhomogeneous polymorphic class2 rotational matrices? > > > > > > What does GR say about it? Does GR assume something not in evidence? Is GR lacking evidence? Is it beyond the limits of GR? Why or why not? > > > > > > Am I the only one able to calculate it and answer the question? Can anyone prove me wrong. You can't because you don't know what 'right' is. > > > > > > Where is Hillman, Gibbs, Baez, or Roberts? What do they have to say about this? Would they know or just think they know? > > > > > > Who can one rely upon for this matter? Who can analyze all the aspects of this and be confident with an answer? It doesn't cost anything to try. > > > > > > > You can get the professional quality answers easier, > > if reposted in a cooperative style. > > > > Not in confrontation and demanding style, > > that does not really search for the answer, > > but just for confirmation of your a priori idea. > > > > Searching for confirmation, > > you evade scientific methods that could violate it. > > > > -- > > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. > > xxein: OK. > > I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate? sounds like an engeneering problem, not a pysics problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <021d2a9b-088d-436a-bfb9-7990c251b0a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594053 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 1:40:04 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 2:39:01 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > > > Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > > >> > > > > xxein: OK. Have it your way. What does GR predict for this case? How is it justified? Until you answer, you are either lazy or unable to do it, > > > > you make an unjustified claim before that. > > > > > > > > "I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate?" > > > > > > > > Did I answer my own question incorrectly? Did I answer my own question? Did anyone else (pun) answer my question? Does anyone know how to answer the question? Did anyone ask how to answer the question? Is it beneath one's dignity to answer the question? Is the answer contained in MTW pp 476 eqns 405-434 - inhomogeneous polymorphic class2 rotational matrices? > > > > > > > > What does GR say about it? Does GR assume something not in evidence? Is GR lacking evidence? Is it beyond the limits of GR? Why or why not? > > > > > > > > Am I the only one able to calculate it and answer the question? Can anyone prove me wrong. You can't because you don't know what 'right' is. > > > > > > > > Where is Hillman, Gibbs, Baez, or Roberts? What do they have to say about this? Would they know or just think they know? > > > > > > > > Who can one rely upon for this matter? Who can analyze all the aspects of this and be confident with an answer? It doesn't cost anything to try. > > > > > > > > > > You can get the professional quality answers easier, > > > if reposted in a cooperative style. > > > > > > Not in confrontation and demanding style, > > > that does not really search for the answer, > > > but just for confirmation of your a priori idea. > > > > > > Searching for confirmation, > > > you evade scientific methods that could violate it. > > > > > > -- > > > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. > > > > xxein: OK. > > > > I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, which clock will have the faster time rate? > > > sounds like an engeneering problem, not a pysics problem. xxein: Is that what you want it to be?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 08:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npbitc$476$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593979 |
Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > "I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere > above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary > clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, > which clock will have the faster time rate?" None of them. Regarding measured rates, either, or none, depending on the scenario settings, as the scenario is vaguely defined. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4609b8c-f36c-4961-84d2-f215626775b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594007 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 2:49:19 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > > > > "I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere > > above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary > > clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, > > which clock will have the faster time rate?" > > None of them. > > Regarding measured rates, either, or none, > depending on the scenario settings, > as the scenario is vaguely defined. > > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. xxein: OK. Since the question asks for a qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, answer - the speed of the falling clock is greater than 0 and less than sqrt(2*(little)g*r).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 09:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npbmu9$e6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593979 |
Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): .... > > "I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere > above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary > clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, > which clock will have the faster time rate?" ... > > Where is Hillman, Gibbs, Baez, or Roberts? ...... .... In sci.physics.relativity -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fccda4e3-9b5a-48f2-adc1-c86b9b16bf22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594009 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 3:58:04 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > Dne 21/08/2016 v 01:19 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > .... > > > > "I station a clock a few meters above the ground. From somewhere > > above, I drop an identical clock so that it passes by the stationary > > clock. At the instant it passes, as a matter of principle, > > which clock will have the faster time rate?" > ... > > > > Where is Hillman, Gibbs, Baez, or Roberts? ...... > .... > > In sci.physics.relativity > > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. xxein: I'll check.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 08:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <np8uoe$j8k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593916 |
Dne 20/08/2016 v 08:29 xxein1@att.net napsal(a): > ... Now that IS funny because there is an answer and it didn't come from THE THEORY. But the funniest part is that Pootie thinks that there is no such knowledge outside of THE THEORY. Obviously, he has no answer either way. > I need not to have an answer. I am neither a theory author, nor its developer nor its active user. It is YOUR duty to get the answer of theory before making claim it does not provide any. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web